What is the Tomatometer®?

The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV programming quality for millions of moviegoers. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show.

From the Critics

From RT Users Like You!

Fresh

The Tomatometer is 60% or higher.

Rotten

The Tomatometer is 59% or lower.

Certified Fresh

Movies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Reviews

A classic movie with stunning graphics with tons of Easter eggs and fun references but still can't quite compete with the Harry Potter movies. The movie has amazing acting especially out of Dan Fogler, who plays an aspiring baker who gets dragged into the mess, it also has a bit of a dark touch to it.

This film has stuff to enjoy but overall it felt very weak compared to the harry potter films. The characters and the story are nowhere near as interesting as the characters and story of the harry potter films.

it was okay, there was nothing specific special about this film especially in comparison to the rest of the Harry Potter franchise. There were loop holes, but that's to be expected in magic films. The real let down was the writing. There were too many ah ha gotcha moments that were poorly executed.They tried to follow the standard formula to the tee but felt like they forgot some character development of some characters along the way.They try their best to fit the Holly wood movies protagonists need a love interests trope together in the end. With their lack of chemistry it would have been more realistic if Newt ended up with the Baker.

Cliche and borders on insulting with the plot line being so simple and stupid. I don't understand how is it so bad when the others were good. Just the classic "Man is Bad, Animals are good, we will not listen because we are politicians and we know better than you" story

1926, New York. Newt Scamander, an English wizard, has just arrived in the city, complete with a suitcase full of magic, including a rather mysterious creature. He soon discovers that wizards and witches are not looked upon favourably and is soon in trouble with the authorities, due to them clamping down on wizards and witches. When his magical case is switched with that of an everyday, non-magical citizen, adventures ensue.

A prequel to Harry Potter, and I'm not a Harry Potter fan. This said, the movie initially seemed to have a decent, intriguing plot, so I had hopes for something good, well, better, more substantial, than Harry Potter.

Alas, it was not to be. The movie soon falls back on the Harry Potter formula of style-over-substance disguised by a host of sci fi / fantasy themes, terms and effects. Ends up just being special effects for special effects sake.

Harry Potter nostalgia is a strange thing for me. I love discussing the books, particularly with those who, like me, grew up reading these stories. The films are largely faithful representations of the stories and characters, and I was saddened to see them conclude six years ago. This film keeps a few of the elements we love, but is trying very hard to tell its own story.

Set about a hundred years ago, we follow Newt Scamander and his arrival in America. He brings many strange and unusual creatures with him, and must solve a dark mystery in the process. Along the way, he meets local wizards Tina and Queenie Goldstein, and Jacob Kowalski, a local Mugg-I mean no-maj.

Right off the bat, I must compliment the movie's visual splendour. The beasts are well-done, and the sets and world, while different from Hogwarts, still capture the sense of wonder the films were always so good at. I also enjoyed the way the world was built, with American wizarding culture having a few different quirks compared to British culture.

There seemed to be two different movies going on here. One story took up the first two acts, while another really only got attention at the climax of the film. There was a lack of connective tissue between the two stories, which felt jarring.

I did really enjoy the acting here. Redmayne was good, and Waterston and Fogler were both very enjoyable. The animals were the real stars here, though.

There's a lot of universe-based nostalgia here, but the story is its own (though there is fanservice).